1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to animal training, specifically to devices for training an animal such as a dog to discontinue undesired behaviors such as pulling, when attached to a leash or other restraining device.
2. Prior Art
Because animals, such as dogs, are generally required by law to be on a leash when in public, and because walking an animal is often its only available exercise, various training strategies and devices have been developed over the years to try to control an animal's behavior while on a leash. Some professional trainers prefer the use of training strategies alone without any special devices, but among the vast population of animal owners, access to training devices has long been welcomed. Existing devices break down into correction devices, which rely on negative reinforcement to instill long-term behavioral changes; and behavioral management devices, which attempt to manage leash pulling during a walk, with less certain claims to long-term behavioral change.
Among correction devices, the most familiar are choke collars (also known as slip collars or choke chains), prong collars (also known as pinch collars), and shock collars (also known as electronic collars). The underlying principle of these particular devices is that through repeated administration of physical discomfort to the animal's neck by a skilled and judicious user, the animal's inappropriate behavior, be it leash pulling or another unwanted behavior, will be corrected over time. However, these two operational characteristics—reliance on physical discomfort and on the qualifications of the user—set the stage for serious injuries to the animal as well as poor training results. For example, correct use of a choke collar entails positioning the device in one of two possible orientations on the dog's neck and applying a quick tightening and release action. User errors can be easily committed with respect to both the orientation used and the amount of tightening applied; the former error being especially grave in that the collar's release feature is fully disabled. As a result, numerous animal neck injuries and deaths have occurred in association with choke collars. Also, correction collars of this type are not appropriate for use with an extendible leash.
Insufficiency of user skill and/or an excess of physical discomfort to the animal are likewise operational risks inherent to the other above named examples in the correction device category, with consequences similarly ranging from poor training results to serious animal injuries. The prong collar additionally has the drawback of presenting a frightening appearance, even when not engaged. Accidents can also occur when these correction devices are left on an animal unattended.
However, even where appropriately used and behaviorally effective, correction devices that administer discomfort or pain are increasingly rejected by pet owners in favor of more humane sanctioning methods, such as spraying animals with odorless or aversive fluids or generating startling sounds. An example of a spray device is the electronic remote citronella collar, such as is described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,868,103. Such devices enable an owner to remotely administer a spray of citronella, which is found offensive by many animals. Although considered humane, the effectiveness of this device is easily compromised if a user fails to execute the split second timing required for an animal to associate the punishment with a behavior. Moreover, remote collars have the potential to misfire, further complicating the training. Also, because existing citronella collars are electronic, they entail the inconvenience of battery replacement or recharging, as well as the environmental concerns associated with battery disposal. (Shock collars are also subject to the concerns inherent in an electronic device.) Devices that use an electric wire connection rather than a wireless connection between owner and animal to facilitate owner-activated spraying, as proposed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,327,998 by Andre et. al., also share the drawbacks intrinsic both to electronic devices and to devices that depend on user skill. Correction devices that employ sound deterrence are considered humane, and in devices such as described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,494,002 by Greene, do not depend on user skill; however, they typically fall short of intended training goals because the sound emitted tends to be ignored by the animal, yet be bothersome to the owner and passersby. U.S. Pat. No. 5,911,199 proposes a correction device that is self-activating in response to varying degrees of pulling by an animal on a leash, however the corrective feedback is in the form of electrical stimulus pulses, which can cause pain to the animal.
Many animal owners have turned to behavior management devices, as they are generally more humane than existing correction devices; however, these devices typically do not make claims to lasting behavioral change, nor do they have the versatility of most correction devices to address behaviors other than leash pulling. The leading management devices are harnesses and halters. Harnesses distribute the force of pulling to the animal's torso, thereby tending to avoid neck related injuries and strangulation. However, their aptness for training is questionable. Indeed, many argue that sled dogs wear harnesses specifically because they promote pulling. As such, standard harnesses have been relegated primarily to use with smaller animals whose leash pulling is not troublesome enough to warrant correction, but whose fragile necks benefit from a harness's neck protective advantages over regular collars. Larger animals, for whom control is required, are typically not well served by harnesses. The fact that the leash does not attach to the neck area makes it near impossible to “steer” and signal the animal, as required for management, let alone training. One type of harness, such as is described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,107,939 by Lady, attempts to address the “steering” issue by positioning the leash connector in the middle of the forechest rather than at the back. However, since the sizing challenges common to harnesses still obtains, such devices must effectively overcome the possibility of the “steering” juncture becoming displaced, or of an animal slipping out of a harness altogether. Additionally, because harnesses require either a multiplicity of straps or a single complexly looped strap, they tend to be both hard to fit and inconvenient to repeatedly put on and take off an animal. Finally, to the degree that harnesses are designed for mobility constraint and are prone to be imperfectly fit, they can cause shoulder injuries, chafing of the animal's legs, or gagging.
Halters, the other leading management device, are designed for pets such as dogs with the same intent as a horse's halter; namely, to control the direction of the animal's body by controlling the head. As such, they typically contain a strap behind the animal's head and over the muzzle, with the leash attachment at the animal's head. U.S. Pat. No. 4,838,206 by Anderson et al. provides an example of a halter. While some owners of dogs, particularly large ones, report good results with a halter, the halter's drawbacks make this device inappropriate for many animals and owners. The most widely reported drawback is that many animals simply do not accept wearing a halter and have even been known to rub their muzzles against the ground in an effort to remove it. Other animals require a long adjustment period. Average animal owners also must assume responsibility for using halters correctly, as evidenced by the existence of literature published on the art of managing dogs with a halter. Additionally, since a halter resembles a restraining muzzle in appearance, owners must be reconciled to this perception when walking their animals publicly. Other concerns are that the muzzle strap in some designs may make it difficult for the animal to open its mouth to pant, drink, or receive food rewards. Because the leash is attached to the halter at the head, the user must take care not to allow any twisting strain to the animal's neck, which could cause serious injury. For this reason, the halter is not appropriate for use with an extendible leash.
Hence there is the need for a device that, like choke collars and other early correction devices, offers generic control of a range of behaviors, not just leash pulling; and moreover, provides long-term stimulus-response conditioning rather than the temporary and limited control of a management device like the halter. The invention described herein fills this need while overcoming limitations of existing correction devices; namely, over-reliance on user skill; inhumane or ineffective sanctioning means; high susceptibility to injury infliction though ignorant misuse; risks when left on an animal unattended; inappropriateness for an extendible leash; frightening appearance to passersby; and reliance on electronics, with its associated expense, inconvenience, and known instances of malfunctioning.